Friday, 19 April 2013

Considering enlightenment: a project in reconfiguration Part.1

If
you are too well connected, you stop thinking. The clamour, the immediacy, the
tendency to absorb other people's thoughts, interrupt the deep abstraction
required to find your own way.

George Monbiot

Introduction

This
essay follows on from a previous article I wrote for the Elephant Journal, which
attempted to give a positive overview of Post-Traditional Buddhism, an emerging
form of modern Buddhism that is not embedded in traditional Buddhist structures.
Below, I explore enlightenment, its popular terminology, and a simple and
straightforward model for mapping it into four stages that hopefully works to
demystify one of the core abstract features of contemporary spiritual
discourse. I wish to continue to consider post-traditional possibilities in
approaching the topic of enlightenment in Buddhism in an attempt at a sort of
soft subversion of its central taboo. I will take Buddhist materials as sign
posts, rather than definitive truths in this exploration, so this work is
indebted to Buddhism, but I hope not overly limited by it. It is really an
attempt to push at the constraints of Buddhism and find an increasingly human
phenomenon that might leave behind the religious, and perhaps even the fuzzy notion
of spiritual all together.

I,
like many, feel that Buddhism has failed to evolve and live up to its original
promise to show us the way out of ignorance, confusion and suffering, becoming
instead too often a means for developing a Buddhist identity, or a much
taunted basis for the pursuit of the ever ephemeral goal of happiness. It
provides an immense wealth of invaluable material that can aid our
understanding of the human condition, techniques and practices that can lead
to insight and genuine breakthrough, as well as a moral framework that can
guide an individual to be less destructive, but at the same time, Buddhism has
stagnated in its traditional expressions, and in the West it has failed to
evolve into a truly new and radical form on any meaningful scale Instead it has undergone cosmetic changes and evolved into more user friendly forms that generally result in
what we might term Buddhism-Light. Rather than engage in a simple
deconstruction of Buddhism, I am driven by a compulsion to push the
phenomenological value of Buddhism into the shared, human landscape, unhindered
by cumbersome institutional politics, and traditional ideological ties. I
believe strongly that such ideas as freedom from suffering and liberation from
the claustrophobic, fictitious self are possible. I believe we can experience
immense care and empathy for other human animals and contribute to shifting the
momentum of history in a better direction. For me, leaving such possibilities
to Buddhism, or any other religion for that matter, is no longer intellectually
viable, and it is possible that the further I go with my own reconfiguring, the
more likely it is that post-traditional, will become post-Buddhism, but for now
the link remains and the project of reconfiguring continues to prove fruitful.

For
those who are unaware of the notion of Post-Traditional Buddhism, it means what
it says: after tradition, outside of tradition, but not abandoning Buddhism.
Post-traditional means engaging critically and utilizing other
sources of knowledge to explore Buddhism, but more importantly, risking everything that
is personally held dear about it to come to a more honest and authentic
reading and engagement with it. It is an ongoing process and requires a
dedication to examining the explicit and hidden pay offs that occur through
allegiance with the Buddhist identity. Radical change as alluded to by the
figure of the Buddha is possible and it is likely found beyond the norms and
social boundaries of Buddhism and the identities that form within it. It is
often forgotten that identity is in great part the problem that is being got at
through Buddhism’s technology and that often followers confuse being a
Buddhist, with doing Buddhism, and both of those with simply exploring the
human condition and seeing a way to engage with it on terms different to those
promulgated by whatever passes as normal in the time and place in which they exist.

A
post-traditional approach is unbeholden to traditional notions of ownership
over Buddhist teachings, but does not jettison Buddhism’s wealth. It does
however refuse special claims or categories for Buddhisms, Buddhists or
Buddhist insights and willingly expects the materials that emerge from Buddhism
to be able to stand alone, without special faith, insider trading of special
knowledge, or a privileged status to validate their veracity. Therefore there
will be no allowance given to special claims of super powers, non-human
attainments and ultimate or omniscient knowing, being, or otherwise: a
post-traditional approach is unwilling to allow for privileged positions of
apparent knowing to determine the direction of discourse, or silence critique. Because
it is post-traditional, this piece is an exploration unhindered by the social
mores of any specific Buddhist community, where discussing enlightenment and
claims to such are taboo, and where norms regarding Buddhism’s goal are
established and often act to limit creative and critical engagement regarding
its obtainment, or lack thereof. Leaving aside such baggage, this piece
hopefully builds a case for a sort of reconfiguration of enlightenment, in
which its thoroughly human potential is made explicit. This piece was written
to fill a void. One that I see as being the denial of the more ambitious aims
of Buddhism amongst many contemporary practitioners in the West, including
those who self-define as Secular and who share many of my own views and concerns.

The Project

Within
Buddhist circles and literature, enlightenment is alluded to, discussed,
reified, celebrated, but almost never achieved and when it is obtained, it is
always by some long dead chap in the distant past. Even the Dalai Lama,
Buddhism’s most famous representative, claims to have achieved no such thing,
to be, in his own words, ‘a simple Buddhist monk’. Why is it that the crème de la
crème of Buddhism should not have achieved Buddhism’s ultimate goal? And, if it
is indeed so, what hope is there for the millions of other Buddhists spread
around the globe? What is the point of engaging in Buddhism if Buddhism’s goal
is unattainable? Either there is a problem with the technology employed by
Buddhists, a problem with how enlightenment is perceived and discussed, or
there is some form of deception going on from those teaching it. As Buddhism’s
promise of redemption is apparently obtainable in this lifetime, unlike the post-death
deliverance of the biblical religions, we should in theory be able to achieve it
in this life, and in this time. We should be able to arrive at the same result as
the original Buddha himself, otherwise what are we in it for?

The
first step is obviously defining the thing and this is not so straight forward
because enlightenment remains a doctrinal foundation amongst not just
Buddhists, but Hindus and Jains, as well as an elusive topic of fascination
amongst New-Age teachers, other ragtag individuals and groups. A lack of
consensus emerges from these disparate groups on what enlightenment actually
might be with definitions ranging from becoming your true self, to eradicating
the self entirely. Even within Buddhism a range of definitions emerge regarding
what it is, the impact it has on the individual, how it is obtained, what the
resulting consequences are and who is likely to achieve it. Most Buddhists tend
to either spout a very specific set of answers to these questions based on the
stories they are told, or are simply ignorant and happy to leave the business
of waking up to the specialists. For those less tradition bound, questions may naturally
arise: what is to be made of such variety and how are we to know who has the
right definition and indeed if one exists? How do the earlier traditional
definitions from the Buddhist canon that were generally world-denying fit with
modern day sentiments and ideas about spirituality as a means for living more
fully in the world? These questions are fundamental in beginning to look at the
range of cultures that surround Buddhism’s core aim and perhaps more than
giving rise to simple answers, such questions can provoke a less naïve
exploration of the wider implications of the role of enlightenment in Buddhist
cultures and the tensions that may emerge as a consequence. Enlightenment is certainly
romanticised excessively within Buddhism and spiritual groups in general and
this allows it to remain a topic seemingly off limits to rational discussion
and so it therefore remains in the realm of the speculative. At the risk of
losing all that is special and dreamy, humanizing the affair may be the best
step forward and that is what I will attempt below.

Considering
that Western Buddhism, even in its contemporary traditional guises, tends to
mash together a variety of historically conflicting views into a single,
idealistic catch-all notion of enlightenment, clarity on the topic is elusive.
Sticking with a single tradition’s definition and particular way of relating to
the concept of enlightenment is one choice of course and likely the one that most
committed practitioners of Buddhism take. Buddhism as presented by its consensus
sustaining members in the West usually mixes together the no-self teaching with
the true-self doctrine of Buddha Nature into one. Any respectable western
philosopher will tell you that Buddha Nature basically implies the existence of
a soul, which runs in stark contrast to the conclusions of earlier forms of
Buddhism and in opposition to the philosophical conclusions of Nagarjuna and
the Madhyamaka school of thought. This essay avoids explicit certainties regarding
the ultimate nature of things, or the truth status of cut and dry philosophical
conclusions, Western or Buddhist, firstly because I lack any real expertise in
either, secondly because I am more interested in the phenomenological nature of
the thing and open exploration of how it may exist as a thoroughly human affair.

As
Buddhist enlightenment has yet to be significantly explored by outsiders, that
is to say, those with a total lack of investment in sustaining one view or
another, we are usually left with arguments for a given tradition’s concept of
the thing, or the task of investing our mental faculties in deciphering the
wealth of literature on Buddhist Philosophy and trying to make sense of it all.
The majority of Buddhists seem to accept what they are told on faith and will
inevitably filter what they learn through their western upbringing, education
and modern assumptions, which are likely polluted by Christian notions of salvation,
transcendence and soul. As far as most western philosophers are concerned, they
seem generally happy to remain at the level of the analysis of ideas, though ideas
alone are not enough for those attracted to Buddhism as a means for addressing
life’s core difficulties. Buddhism was always intended as something you do,
rather than just believe. So for those who are curious and wish to explore it
as a methodology rather than a religion, but wish for a less biased
understanding of enlightenment, very little, if anything, is available in the
way of sober discussion free of the rhetoric of traditional Buddhist views, or
a western materialistic refusal to consider such possibilities as even out
there, as potentially available to anyone with enough dedication to bring the
thing about. When there is fresh discussion to be had, it so often devolves
into overt mysticism and deference to ineffable results that are far removed
from any seemingly achievable reality that a human might come to know in a
human life and a human context.

Within
Buddhist traditions enlightenment is reified and adorned in wonderful lyrical
rhetoric. Our tradition has the answer and we know the true way is too often a
collectively cemented assumption yet inevitably it is only the distant master
who is speculated to have achieved such an exalted result, so followers are
left with an odd predicament. They are told again and again how wonderful
enlightenment is, how they must end suffering, they must become a bodhisattva and
that they must achieve it all as time is running out and we live in a dark age,
yet no one ever gets anywhere near it. The reason in part may be political and
related to issues regarding transmission and hierarchy. It could also simply be
that it is easier to encourage followers to focus on the more mundane, but no
less intangible goals of Buddhism, such as seeking merit, positive karma
accumulation or next life-time rewards, or perhaps worst of all, the allusive wisp
of happiness. It may also be that teachers are simply carrying on as normal the
tradition of leaving the most transformative aspect of Buddhism where it
belongs, as a romanticised fantasy that acts to validate and cement the
tradition, whilst ensuring the rabbit hole hatch remains firmly shut and
business continues as usual. Having followers bamboozled by an abstract dream,
rather than face up to the harsher truths of Buddhism and their consequences,
if truly embraced, certainly avoids the destabilising potential of people
waking up not only to the individual causes of suffering and ignorance, but
also those inculcated by the tradition itself.

Mass
market Buddhist meditation has emerged in its most accessible and commercial
form in the Mindfulness movement, which avoids such lofty goals as freedom, and
focuses on stress relief, pain management and the pursuit of happiness. It is
all well and good to secularise meditation and turn it into a stress reduction
technique deigned to be used by anybody (including unethical bankers and
billionaires with suspicious sources of income), but as any sufficiently well
read Buddhist knows, stress reduction has very little to do with the original
motivation for engaging in meditative techniques within the multiple forms of
traditional Buddhism. You can take the mystical and religious aspects out of
secularised Buddhist meditation practices, but you cannot take Buddhism out of
the history of secular meditation practice. Further, if any half intelligent
person decides to take mindfulness-based stress reduction meditation seriously
as an ongoing daily discipline, at some point they will start to realise that
the techniques involved have more to them than simply making you feel comfortable
in your current life circumstances. If Buddhism is to provide a meaningful
exchange in an engagement with secular society that goes further than the
commodification of a handful of techniques, it needs to be willing to expose
its most sacred treasure to constructive and potentially disruptive outside
criticism so that the walls of obfuscation that have been built up around it
can tumble and reveal what is left. What may remain could be an answer to the
never-ending dilemma of meaningless brought about through the project of modernity:
a phenomenological response to how to live with the loss of ultimate
intervention in human affairs.

In
spite of the term enlightenment becoming a buzz word that has been used to sell
endless books, seminars and visits from celebrity dharma teachers, as a central
premise its actualisation is radical and does not lend itself so readily to
commercialisation and pop packaging. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that
definitions of enlightenment in Buddhism are so often superlative and full of
mystique. The cold facts of dismantling our cherished notions of self and
casting ourselves into the infinite embrace of uncertainty may simply be too
uncomfortable and, more than ever, a direct affront to our self-obsessed,
collective self-image. As the world becomes increasingly unstable though, and
shared ideas of identity are undermined by global forces, the opportunity to
shed the imprisoning nature of a fixed I, a fixed self, a stable narrative that
gives sense and meaning to life, could theoretically become more easily
available, and more than ever needed....

Pages

About Me

I'm a Life Coach, Core Shamanic Counsellor and meditation teacher to boot. I also teach English in Trieste, Italy. I follow a non-traditional expression of Buddhism and also run occasional events over the border from Trieste in Slovenia on Shamanism. Email me if you're curious about any of these activities.

Benvenuti (welcome)

This blog started out as an experiment. It continues to be such to this day. The opinions you will find in these pages are my own, and like all material on this Earth, are subject to change due to that hidden factor of impermanence.

This blog started out as an experiment. Writing is an art and one which I am only now starting to develop any capacity in. All of my writing constitutes a learning process in the presentation of ideas, opinions and experience. I am no expert, but I am doing my best to develop and learn from each piece I publish.

This blog started out as an experiment. I've no idea where it will end up. I explore Buddhist and Shamanic themes in this blog. Both areas which interest a fairly small percentage of Western society. Therefore this blog is quite specialist. It goes one step further by not representing any particular tradition in either of these spiritual arenas, although I have grounding in two shamanic worlds; one a path, the other an approach to counselling. My experience of Buddhism is primarily within the Tibetan and Theravada traditions.